BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT BHATKHANDE,BORIVALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: B BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RATNA DASGUPTA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 3942/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT INCOME TAX OFFICER BHATKHANDE WARD 42 1 1 MUMBAI 400 YOGANAND SOCIETY L T KAUTILYA BHAVAN B K C ROAD VAZIRA NAKA BORIVLI Vs. MUMBAI WEST MUMBAI, MUMBAI- MUMBAI-400051, 400091, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of APNPB5346L Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Mandar Vaidya, AR ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shree Kumar C. (SR AR)

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 07-Aug-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 17/08/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order dated 24/02/2026 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] for AY 2018-19, on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 249(4) (b) apply, only WHARE an obligation is cast upon the assessee to pay advance tax. It is submitted that the assessee had categorically stated

ITA 3942/MUM/2026 BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT BHATKHANDE before the CIT(A) that she had no taxable income and hence sec.249(4)(b) would not apply 2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that clause (b) of Section 249(4) of the Act will not apply as there is no question of paying advance tax in reassessment proceedings, even though assessee did not file return of income 3) The Ld. CIT(A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that the conditions prescribed in the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act shall apply to original return of income required to be filed u/s. 139 of the Act and the same will not apply to the reassessment proceedings 4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The assessee is an individual and a resident. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee did not file her return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Based on information flagged through the Risk Management Strategy of the CBDT and available on the Insight Portal, it was noticed that during FY 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19, the assessee had jointly purchased an immovable property along with Shri Abhijit Bhatkhande for a total consideration of Rs. 1,89,00,000/-. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148A was issued on 06/08/2024. After considering the submissions furnished by the assessee, an order u/s. 148A(d) was passed on 29/08/2024, holding that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Consequently, notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29/08/2024 and the proceedings were thereafter transferred to the Faceless Assessing Officer.

2.1. During the reassessment proceedings, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on 06/06/2025 and 29/08/2025, followed by a

ITA 3942/MUM/2026 BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT BHATKHANDE centralized communication dated 31/07/2025, issue letter dated 16/09/2025 and show-cause notices u/s. 144 dated 23/09/2025 and proposing variations dated 08/10/2025. However, as recorded by the Ld. AO, no compliance or response was received from the assessee. The assessee also did not file any return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148.

2.2. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee and Shri Abhijit Bhatkhande had jointly purchased an immovable property situated at Flat No. 501, 5th Floor, 1 Wing, Ashok Nagar Complex, Village Eksar, Vazira Naka, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092, vide registered deed dated 10/11/2017, for a consideration of Rs. 1,89,00,000/-. The Ld. AO required the assessee to explain the source of investment and to furnish the registered deed, bank statements and other related documentary evidence. In the absence of any compliance, the Ld. AO treated the source of investment as unexplained. Taking into account the consideration of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- along with stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental expenses, the total cost of acquisition was worked out at Rs. 1,98,76,240/-. Since the property was jointly purchased, the assessee's share was taken at 50%, amounting to Rs. 99,38,120/-, which was treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.

2.3. The assessment was accordingly completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 04/11/2025, determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 99,38,120/-. The Ld. AO also invoked the provisions of section

ITA 3942/MUM/2026 BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT BHATKHANDE 115BBE and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had, in Form No. 35, stated that the requirement of section 249(4)(b) was “Not applicable”, whereas, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee was required to pay the amount of advance tax payable on the assessed income. It was also noted that the assessee had neither made such payment nor sought exemption from the operation of section 249(4)(b). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal was not liable to be admitted.

3.2. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal as infructuous on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement

ITA 3942/MUM/2026 BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT BHATKHANDE prescribed u/s. 249(4)(b) of the Act, without adjudicating the merits of the addition of Rs. 99,38,120/- u/s. 69 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

4.1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24/02/2026 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

4.2. The Ld. CIT(A) shall first examine the issue relating to the applicability of section 249(4)(b) of the Act and, upon satisfying himself regarding the maintainability/admissibility of the appeal, shall adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits of the case. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard and shall be at liberty to furnish all relevant documents and submissions in support of her case. The

ITA 3942/MUM/2026 BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT BHATKHANDE Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- RATNA DASGUPTA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai Dated: 17/08/2026 SC, Sr. P.S. Copy to:

BHAGYASHREE ABHIJIT BHATKHANDE, 400 YOGANAND SOCIETY L T ROAD 1 VAZIRA NAKA BORIVLI WEST MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400091, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42 1 1 MUMBAI , 2 KAUTILYA BHAVAN B K C MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE